Dandroth

@ZELLKLUMPEN "beauty is subjective / I'm more beautiful than you." I don't see the problem

@kirawontmiss When he said "he was dead" he meant "he was almost certainly going to die"

why is no one talking about this????

@AgainstAtheismX Are you asking why a group restricted by nothing but a lack of belief in a god doesn't push back against beliefs that have nothing to do with gods? I.e. most Buddhists ARE atheists And maybe I've never seen an atheist fight neo pagans because I've never seen a neo pagan.

Ever seen an Atheist attack a neo-pagan? A buddhist? Do you see them attacking children who believe in the tooth-fairy? Or Santa claus? It's because they know those things don't exist. Christianity, however...

@Unfiltermindd @CDisillusion Your zoom in perfectly disproves mask theory. Look at the very edge, in the center, of what you're calling the mask. It moves independently from the rest of the neck. Impossible for a mask.

@CDisillusion It’s mask obviously

Ok, Imma explain the admiral neck shadow thing. (Spoilers: it's not a rubber mask, ya weirdos)... 🧵

@darwintojesus "no one wrote them" is not the correct counter case. It's actually "none of the theories are right about who wrote them" which is possible.

So simple!

@Lord_Gothmog @paleochristcon It's not just x unfortunately. Terrifying stuff.

@paleochristcon This mask psychosis must have been the most inane thing I have seen on X this year lol

Lmfao.

@skillissues_1 @welshy187 @MrSausageGet I know right? A national news channel having feeds of more than one person talking!?! Insane. Much more likely he's a lizard man in a mask

@tjf9549 @welshy187 @MrSausageGet Another person talking? 😂😂😂

WTF

@skillissues_1 @welshy187 @MrSausageGet Sure, different chroma key than the one they use for the background, replaced with video of a different person talking. Don't know if that's what actually happened, but it's plausible.

@tjf9549 @welshy187 @MrSausageGet Ok so can you explain why the supposed background has a skin colour tone and is moving like a neck?

@slimatic33 @paleochristcon That wasn't real. You were fooled by obvious ai.

@paleochristcon ya totally not a mask..... you would've said the same thing about Jim

Im doubling down. It's a shadow and you are all wrong and I am right. At the VERY LEAST. It isn't a mask.

@skillissues_1 @welshy187 @MrSausageGet It's impossible he's wearing one additional shirt other than the ones we see? Or that his shirt has a colored border? So you know which chroma keys they were replacing with which feeds? You do know they often do multiple chroma keys, right?

@welshy187 @MrSausageGet So hes wearing a green shirt underneath a shirt underneath a shirt underneath a blazer? and the greenscreen picks up a skin colour background from a city skyline which moves asw? Retard

@sarahsalviander Suffering is not a good argument against God in general, but it is against an all powerful loving God. 1. Love = doing all you can to prevent suffering 2. God can do anything 3. God loves everyone 4. All suffering is prevented Yet there is suffering

Yesterday I asked for the strongest arguments in favor of the claim "there is no God." A lot of responses had to do with suffering. Atheists, help me understand why suffering is an argument against God. One thing I don't understand in particular is this: if there is no God, just a materialist universe, then how do you contextualize suffering? What is it? Is it still bad? Please help me understand this.

@LionelLassiter AND a particle component. Some suggest redefining waves and particles from traditional definitions so it sorta works. But I haven't seen any claim "particle and wave simultaneously". I think because it would be logically impossible. How could it?

@LionelLassiter Actually simple, logically at least, not the math or the physics. Now, I tried to verify your definition. There appears to be several competing models to explain the behavior of light between observations conceptually. Some suggest a wave component...

How can light be both a wave and a particle simultaneously, yet the particle is not a wave and a wave is not a particle?

@LionelLassiter *different

@LionelLassiter Yeah, I said it's not true that light IS a wave AND a particle SIMULTANEOUSLY. actually, it BEHAVES LIKE a wave OR a particle AT DEPENDENT TIMES (depending on experimental conditions)

@LionelLassiter Huh? What are you talking about? There is a difference between logic and physics. For example, in a simulation you can delete an object. This is logically consistent, but in the real world that violates the law of the conversation of matter.

@tjf9549 if it doesn’t make sense in physics, why would it make sense logically? you are assuming that physics has an answer, it doesn’t, and any logical argument you build above it will be based on incomplete knowledge.

@LionelLassiter You're talking about it not making sense from a physics perspective. It should be trivially obvious from a logical perspective which is obviously the point of the comparison

@tjf9549 took quantum physics, material science and optics in university. I know more about the topic than the average X joe and you can’t still prove to me how light behaving both like particle and wave makes sense from first principles.

@LionelLassiter Ok, let me simplify it for you. "Sometimes light behaves like a wave, sometimes light behaves like particle" If you still don't get it, I can't help you.

@tjf9549 no, still doesn’t make any fucking sense